Sal Cordova Withdraws from the ID Movement

_{Barry Arrington

January 15, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

After spending the last few years pretending to be an ID proponent, all the while bashing every other ID proponent and disparaging most ID ideas, Salvador Cordova has finally come clean and formally withdrawn from the ID movement. Here. He did it over at The Skeptical Zone, of course, where he has found a home with more like-minded folks.

Comments

ID does not require the supernatural.ET_{July 21, 2021
July
07
Jul
21
21
2021
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Sal falling for the idea that man made objects can be identified by design while supernatural design cannot be distinguished is puzzling to me. That opinion essentially makes ID useless in the evolution debate. I was just curious to what happened to the guy. Did his wife or girlfriend dump him and run off with another guy? Just wondering?kllrDogThermo_{July 21, 2021
July
07
Jul
21
21
2021
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Salvador claims Barry bullied him and he [Salvador] never had the guts to say what he really thought when he was posting here. Meanwhile, over at TSZ, he feels he is among friends.Mung_{January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Darwin on Trial became a uniting force around which many like-minded individuals—scholars of many stripes, churchgoers, students, and even open-minded agnostics who dared extend their skepticism to Darwin—could rally. For many, that rallying cry ultimately became “Intelligent Design!” ~ Phillip Johnson Before ID OECs and YECs spent most of their time tearing each other down. The genius of Johnson was that he saw an opportunity to unite the factions against the common opponent of naturalism.bevets_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

I never thought I'd live to see the day when YECs and atheists form an alliance. We live in interesting times.Mapou_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Salvador was called on to repent, repeatedly.Mung_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

J-Mac, Anybody who insists that a story about a devious talking snake that deceives a naked woman in a garden and about trees whose fruits give the eater immortality and divine knowledge of good and evil, anybody who claims that such a story should be taken literally is off his rocker. Cordova should stay at the Skeptical Zone where he belongs. They appreciate nonsense over there much more than we do here at UD. Although, I must admit, we see of lot of the same nonsense over here too.Mapou_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

"J-Mac, Sal can’t defend his views anywhere. I don't think Sal is getting a fair treatment here at UD after his many contributions. I like his style and he is definitely a believer in a Superior Being. To throw away his valuable contributions into the sewer doesn't meet any of the "Christian" qualities... There is still the story of the prodigal son... The prostitute that repented and the apostle Peter who denied Jesus in his most trying time. Don't you think Sal should get a break? He is a very insightful man. Why bash him without the full picture and his side of the story?J-Mac_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT}

RE the mtDNA comment - probably something to do with this: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate-/ RE J-macs comment - can you show me where in the Bible a day is defined as possessing evening and morning and not referring to a 24hr day? The 24hr day is actually the least of the pile of literal reasons the YEC accepts a young earth - it more so comes from the necessity of taking that portion of the Bible literal in order to adhere to sound hermeneutical doctrine found in the rest of the Bible, and how old ages end up with accepting things that are ireconcilablewith such sound doctrine.Dr JDD_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

ha ha I think you're right, there, esteemed Mung !Axel_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Axel: It’s just an excuse so Sal can spend more of his time playing poker. Thankfully the casinos don't have coin-tossing games, we'd never see Sal again.Mung_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Hello Aqeels, I am glad that you are enjoying it. If you have an extra moment, please consider leaving a comment. Gracias mi amigo (amiga).Upright BiPed_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Go on... It's just an excuse so Sal can spend more of his time playing poker. He'll be back.Axel_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Mapou, your #29 : '.... ID is science for a very simple reason. The alternative is obviously crap.' A laughably simple, but utterly seminal insight ! What discoveries have a faith in the design capabilities of random chance have ever led to any scientific discovery ? When you think of the term, 'the scientific method' and such recurrent words in this context as 'methodology', 'system', virtually any concept implying the use of intelligence, even a magpie's, it is patently manifest that 'the alternative is crap'- indeed, is crap, a priori, given that it must always amount to nihilism. We're robots, aren't we, incapable of designing without input from a deus ex machina. Oh My. I haven't let God's foot in the door, have I ?Axel_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

UB @36 - Really good reading at Biosemiosis.org. Enjoying it. :) Sal had some interesting things to say from time to time so it is a shame that he is not posting here anymore. I was looking forward to his comments in this thread, but none came.aqeels_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

Most results from observations and experiments performed by research scientists these days are somehow available to other scientists who may analyze the data and draw pertinent conclusions. The leading proponents of ID seem very interested in the "intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". Therefore, ID could be considered a scientific paradigm. The folks involved in the ID discussion seem to come from a wide diversity of philosophical and theological positions. Therefore associating ID with a particular philosophical or theological position seems like a mistake that could lead to a distorted view of ID. From a philosophical/theological perspective ID seems like a huge "eintopf" on steroids. :) Different opinions on quantum physics, absolute moral laws, NDE, history, politics, the cake baked by auntie Matilda, the age of this planet, the discussed common/uncommon descent subject and many other side topics don't seem to be explicitly derived from the core ID paradigm, which appears to be focused mainly on the detection of functional specified information within the biological systems, and related concepts like spatiotemporal irreducible complexity (STIC). It looks as though, like the rest of the scientific paradigms, ID does not transcend the natural domain. Maybe that's why ID does not seem concerned about the identity of the source (designer) of the functional specified information that is detected in biology. The ID proponents simply conclude that the design agent must be an intelligent consciousness, based on known precedents for other kinds of designed systems. The central ID paradigm leaves the identity of the source of functional specified information (the designing agent) as an open question outside the ID domain. Perhaps that's why within ID one can find so many relatively different worldview positions. Please, note that I don't count myself among the ID proponents, because I believe that Christ Jesus created everything (seen or unseen) and everyone that has existed, exists or will exist in this whole universe, without exceptions. My belief is solidly grounded on God's special revelation to us, which we can accept or reject. However, like any scientific discovery, the main ID paradigm -based on the detection of functional specified information within the biological systems- does not seem to conflict with the Christian belief. Actually, ID seems as a small subset within my worldview. The scientific discoveries that confirm the ID paradigm don't conflict with the Christian belief. That's why I look forward, with increasing anticipation, to reading future research papers about new discoveries that shed more light on the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems. These are fascinating times to watch the scientific discoveries in biology, but people in other times in history also thought they were in fascinating times, and in the future science might present fascinating discoveries too. However, none of that compares with the day when Christ Jesus will come back as it is written. Then every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord. By then it will be too late for those who did not accept God's gracious way to reconcile with Him eternally. Now is the moment in this current age of grace for our Maker to open our spiritual eyes so we can enjoy His glorious presence forever. In the meantime, let's continue watching the fascinating scientific discoveries that at an accelerated pace keep revealing some of the wonders of the ultimate reality.
To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge. – Nicolaus Kopernik.
Dionisio_{January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

J-Mac, Sal can't defend his views anywhere.Virgil Cain_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

YEC absolutely must define what they mean by YEC. The Bible scholars are divided but there are many indications that the creative days are not literal days and that the process of creation of the "Heavens and the Earth" had happened before the creative days begun. There is no proof that the creative days are 24 hour day as the bible uses many inscriptions of days of very, very different lengths going from a 24 hour day to 1000 year day in the same context.J-Mac_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Can Sal defend his views here or was he banned?J-Mac_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge. - Nicolaus Kopernik.
Dionisio_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

As a YEC, I obviously agree with Sal on many things (see above), but restricting ID to man-made things seems an intuitively flawed position. Can you detect design in a beaver's dam? A bee's hive? A spider's web? I think the distinction is an artificial one, and irrelevant.drc466_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

intelligence
The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligence

intelligent
Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level. Early 16th century: from Latin intelligent- 'understanding', from the verb intelligere, variant of intellegere 'understand', from inter 'between' + legere 'choose'.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intelligent

design
A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made. 1.1 The art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing of something before it is made. 1.2 The arrangement of the features of an artefact, as produced from following a plan or drawing.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/design

science
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire 'know'.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/science
Dionisio_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

I was unaware that Sal could not post here either. However I recognize that Sal has made a career out of sticking his butt up in the air ... and so it goes. And when I published Biosemiosis.org, Sal stood among the sewer gnats and joined right in. If I remember correctly, without addressing a single ounce of actual content, he characterized my work as "fancy sounding gibberish". So I have no use for Sal. He can remain off my radar.Upright BiPed_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Stephen: I agree with you that Sal should be able to answer here to our comments. I will only say, for the sake of general discussion, and regarding the statements reported by Eric at #30, that my ideas are very clear about the main point: a) ID is science. b) Making a distinction about design detection between man-made things and things that could be designed, but not realistically by humans, is very bad epistemology, and certainly not science. c) Implying God by default in the above discussion is bad science and bad philosophy. I have already given some pertinent motivations in my post #15.gpuccio_{January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

If I now understand Sal correctly, he was banned from UD prior to his recent controversial comments and cannot respond to anything we say. I wrote my comments @4 to Sal (not about Sal), assuming that he was free to post here. If that is not the case, then I will retire from this thread. I am not going to question or issue challenges to someone who cannot defend himself.StephenB_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things, but not for God-made things .
But is life necessarily a God made thing? Certainly an immense intelligence is necessary but it is easy to imagine that humans could start from basic chemistry and create life in a 100 or 200 years. Creating the universe may be beyond what humans can hope to obtain but I don't think life is of that scale. They have all these models of cellular and multi-cellular life to use as a blueprint. Of course without these blueprints it would take a long while for a comparable intelligence.jerry_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

ID has testable entailments and can be falsified. What else does it need to be considered science, especially given that it already exceeds what evolutionism offers and tat is considered to be science?Virgil Cain_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

EA:
Sal has not, to my knowledge, disavowed the design inference
Sal says ID is not science. He says ID has no positive case. He says we cannot make any inference to a design in living things except to a supernatural deity. He has rejected all of the main tenants of ID that separate it from YEC creationism. As far as I can see, there is no daylight between him and Ken Ham.Barry Arrington_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

OK, I've been over and seen Sal's short post now. Too bad. There is a fundamental mistake in his brief two paragraphs, and it looks like he has been drinking some of the Liddle Kool-Aid. This
I accept stonehenge was intelligently designed because I’ve seen humans make similar artifacts. The case of design in life is a different matter because we have not seen a designer of such qualifications directly. . . . I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things, but not for God-made things . . .
is a logical and practical mistake of the highest order. Ironically, I have been planning for a couple of weeks to do a detailed post addressing this very same error made by Elizabeth Liddle. I guess I'll have to include Sal in my post. :) ----- However -- please note carefully everyone -- Sal has not, to my knowledge, disavowed the design inference (although his mistake in forcing a look-back to human experience is exceedingly close to making that error, as I hope to show in my subsequent post). Rather, he seems to be focused, as he has in the past, on whether ID is "science," using some particular, narrow definition of science. We can disagree over the definition of science; philosophers have been doing so for generations. And we can disagree about whether ID falls into some particular definition of science. But that does not mean we cannot mutually appreciate the design inference or consider ourselves ID proponents and so on. It is not helpful to throw mud or claim that someone has abandoned ID or withdrawan from the ID movement or turned to the dark side because of a quibble over the above nuances of what constitutes "science" -- an issue, that again I remind everyone, has been on the table for centuries. I am disheartened to hear that Sal feels he has been seriously mistreated at UD and by certain individuals. I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but am truly sorry if that has occurred. Sal has many interesting opinions and thoughts and has been around the debate for a long time and -- at least in my humble opinion -- has many worthwhile things to bring to the discussion. ----- Sal, if you have been banned from UD, I am sorry to hear that. If you have not been banned, yes, please do come over if for just a moment to confirm that you "are still a part of the ID community," which I am glad to hear.Eric Anderson_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Jerry, ID is science for a very simple reason. The alternative is obviously crap.Mapou_{January 16, 2016
January
01
Jan
16
16
2016
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply